Sunday, 16 December 2012

This is just getting rather sad. The Daily Mail refuses to give up on finding possible "royal/noble" blood when it comes to the Duchess of Cambridge. The Daily Mail had previously put out a few years back that Kate or Catherine Middleton is a descendant of Mary Boleyn, sister of Queen Anne Boleyn. This however has been disproven by professional genealogists who have been researching her genealogy for years now. (Wargs.com)

The latest attempt on 16 December 2012 to link her to "noble" blood (which the Daily Mail is incorrectly calling her ancestors) shows a link to a supposed second cousin, 3x removed; Barbara Lupton. The study was done by school children. "Pupils in Melbourne, Australia, stumbled across the link during a genealogy project set by their teacher Michael Reed." So how factually correct this all is -- we have no idea because once again, the Daily Mail, has NO sources as to where the information came from exactly! Just word of mouth!

What exactly is the obsession to link her to noble/royal blood? She is a commoner through and through.

According to the Daily Mail:

The teacher contacted Edward, the surviving son of Sir Christopher and Lady Bullock who confirmed the connection.

He also sent his findings to the Duchess, who thanked him for the research.

Her assistant private secretary Rebecca Deacon wrote back on October 19, in the early stages of Kate's pregnancy, that the Duchess sent her best wishes and thanks to the teacher.

Mr Reed told The Sunday Times: 'It is a good feeling to know that I've unearthed something that may be of interest to the Duchess, her family and the Royal family.'

He traced the Duchess's family line back five generations to the Marquess of Lansdowne and his brother Thomas FitzMaurice who lived at the Buckinghamshire stately home Cliveden with his wife Mary, 4th Countess of Orkney in the late 18th century.

William Bortrick, the chairman of Burke's Peerage, said it will make an 'interesting inclusion' in the next edition of the guide, which will be published after the Duchess gives birth.

Ok, let's get this correct. She is linked to them -- related by marriage -- she DOES NOT descend from them or have any blood connection to them so that means there is no noble blood involved. Olive Lupton, Kate's great-grandmother, is a 2nd cousin (distant relation for these days) of Barbara Lupton who married Sir Christopher Bullock. So these are not ancestors.

Ancestors: are those people you directly descend from, not extended
family members! An ancestor or forebear is a parent or (recursively) the
parent of an ancestor (i.e., a grandparent, great-grandparent,
great-great-grandparent, and so forth). Ancestor is "any person from
whom one is descended. In law the person from whom an estate has been
inherited."

The ancestry here, according to the chart above is that of Bullocks father, The Rev. L. Bullock [full name not written out] who married Cecil Augusta Spearman. The connections come from Spearman's family, NOT the Lupton's OR Bullock's! So, the Duchess of Cambridge IS NOT related at all to these previous ancestors of Spearman as two marriages remove the Duchess's distant cousin from the actual family from which these notable people descend. She is only related to the children of Sir Christopher Bullock and Barbara Lupton -- Richard Henry Bullock and Edward Anthony Bullock.

The Prime Minister and Marquess of Lansdowne, William Petty FitzMaurice isn't even an ancestor of the Spearman's or the Duchess's cousin's (Richard and Edward Bullock), but rather a great-uncle of Thomas FitzMaurice, 5th Earl of Orkney (maternal grandfather of Cecil Augusta Spearman). The Marquess was a brother to Thomas FitzMaurice, the husband of Mary, suo jure 4th Countess of Orkney. So again, I applaud the Daily Mail at twisting the truth -- which is far from these conclusions.

As of right now, Kate's lineage only links her back to Edward III of England as an ancestor through a Sir William Fairfax (b. circa 1496). Sir William was the son of Sir Thomas Fairfax (b. circa 1475) and Agnes Gascoigne (b. circa 1474); herself the daughter of Sir William Gascoigne (b. circa 1450) and Lady Margaret Percy (b. circa 1447). By William Fairfax, she descends from Edward III thrice.

Sir William descends from Edward III by the king's granddaughter Lady Joan Beaufort's first marriage to Lord Ferrers. Their daughter Mary married to her step-brother, Sir Ralph Neville, son of Sir Ralph Neville (later 1st Earl of Westmorland) by his first wife, Lady Margaret Stafford. Sir Ralph would go on to marry Lady Joan Beaufort after the death of Margaret Stafford.

Lady Margaret Percy also descends from Edward III by her paternal grandparents, Sir Henry Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland and Lady Eleanor Neville. Percy was a great-grandson of Prince Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence, son of Edward III. Eleanor Neville was another daughter of Lady Joan Beaufort by her second marriage to Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland.

However -- Croft's Peerage -- has put this up on their site...

A descent from Sir William Gascoigne V is one of the
commonest "royal descents" in both Britain and the United States. The New
England Historic Genealogical Society has estimated that up to 50 million Americans
can trace their ancestry back to King Edward III. All of these people are related
(albeit very distantly) to the Duke of Cambridge and possibly to the Duchess.

This purported Royal descent depends on the correct
identification of the Duchess of Cambridge's Fairfax ancestors. Anthony Adolph ("The
Fairfax Ancestry of the Duchess of Cambridge - A Correction" Genealogists'
Magazine Vol 30 No 10 Jun 2012 page 407) casts a critical eye on this line of descent
and finds that the Fairfaxes of Norwich are unlikely to be descended from the Fairfaxes
of Walton and Gilling, thus making the Duchess of Cambridge's connections to royalty
through her Fairfax ancestry "probable" at best.[4]